FireFox NVDA users - To access the following content, press 'M' to enter the iFrame.

Before we do, it's worth noting these campaign ads aren't subject to the strict rules that prevent a candidate or party distributing misleading or deceptive information about their rival during an election. The Coalition has flagged legislation to change that, but will wait until a High Court challenge against the postal survey has been heard.

Any change is at least a week away. The Coalition for Marriage group responsible for the ad is raising money to keep it on the air. It claims it cost $35,000 a day.

Who is this group? It's led by the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL), the Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney, the Anglican Diocese of Sydney and 25 other organisations, many of them Christian. The ACL has a track record of lobbying state and federal governments and claims 80,000 members.

The ad does not directly address the question of whether same-sex couples should be able to marry. It features three unidentified women speaking about their concerns around the impact of same-sex marriage on children.

Let's look at these concerns.

Concern #1

This is a reference to the Safe Schools program, a non-compulsory resource for teachers "to equip them with the knowledge and skills to make their school environments more inclusive for LGBTI young people."

In 2013, the program went national, but the Federal Government pulled funding after it was criticised by some as crossing the line between education and advocacy. Former PM Tony Abbott called it "social engineering".

After the national program was rolled back, Victoria committed to funding its own program. The mother in the ad, Cella White, has complained before about Victoria's program, including this specific complaint about her son's classroom being told they could wear dresses if they identified as female.

The school her son attends, Frankston High School in Victoria, is part of the Safe Schools Coalition, which is backed by the Victorian Government.

"We have no evidence of that ever happening and certainly that parent never raised that concern with myself or any number of school communities," Frankston principal John Albiston told Hack.

"The only way I heard about it was via the media.

"I would have been inundated with complaints from many of our parents if we were ever advocating such a ridiculous idea."

But the bigger issue here is whether there's any link between legalising same-sex marriage and teaching gender fluidity in schools.

This connection is summarised on the ACM website as: "removing gender from marriage laws means removing gender from the classroom."

The upcoming postal survey has one question on legalising same-sex marriage. It doesn't refer to how children will be taught in schools.

Education Minister Simon Birmingham said it was "patently ridiculous to suggest that allowing same-sex couples to marry is somehow going to see some new wave of teaching reform sweep across the country."

"That's just not going to happen. This is a simple issue, and it should not be conflated with other issues."

Concern #2

This is another reference to Safe Schools.

An independent review of the Safe Schools program, released in March last year, drew attention to one lesson where students as young as 11 were asked what it would be like to be same-sex attracted.

In its response to the review, the Federal Government decided to remove these parts of the lesson, and cancelled funding for the program beyond 2017. Victoria has committed to running the program unedited. From 2018, the program will be mandatory in state high schools, whatever the outcome of the postal survey.

Concern #3

Given the rest of the ad is about education and schools, this seems to be implying parents will lose the "rights to choose" what their child is taught about sexuality and gender.

Let's look at New Zealand, where same-sex marriage has been legal since 2013. Its equivalent of Safe Schools is called InsideOut. It doesn't have the same level of government support as Safe Schools. Schools can choose to download and use InsideOut teaching material.

Monica Doumit, a spokeswoman for the Coalition for Marriage, told Hack that in Canada and the UK "parents after same-sex marriage is legalised lose the right to exclude children from classes like the education classes being promoted by Safe Schools."

The Coalition for Marriage website also gives the same examples: Canada and the UK.

"In Canada, the school curriculum changed to introduce increasingly explicit content to children," the website states.

This curriculum includes children in Grade 3 (about eight years old) being taught about sexual orientation, children in Grade 5 being taught about intercourse, Grade 6 being taught about masturbation and "gender expression" and Grades 7 and 8 discussing preventing contraception, anal and oral sex, preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections.

The website doesn't mention this curriculum only applies to the province of Ontario - i.e. it's not a national policy.

It also doesn't mention that parents have the right to withdraw their children from the curriculum if they're uncomfortable with the content.

The new curriculum was brought in 10 years after Canada legalised same-sex marriage.

In the United Kingdom, same-sex marriage has been legal in England (and Scotland and Wales, but not Northern Ireland) since 2014. The Coalition for Marriage website notes that this year education authorities have threatened to close a Jewish school for girls that has failed to teach children "homosexuality is normal". The legal basis is a breach of the Equality Act.

When Hack pointed out to the Coalition for Marriage that the Equality Act was passed in 2010 - four years before same-sex marriage - spokeswoman Monica Doumit replied:

"I don't think the links are tenuous, I can see the timeline works exactly.

"You change the same-sex marriage laws and then schools are required to teach that. Parents are losing the right."

Concern #4

This seems to be a reference to the examples of Canada and the UK, mentioned above.

The Canadian example is not widespread or compulsory for students. The UK example is widespread and compulsory, but it's not a program. It's a minimum requirement that schools encourage respect for LGBTI people. On top of that, it was passed before same-sex marriage was legalised.

Again, it's worth pointing out the same-sex postal survey is not a ballot on education policy. It only has one question: "Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?"

Recommendations

About Hack

Hack talks about the stuff that matters to young Australians. In your feed 24/7, on your radio 5:30pm weekdays.